Biotech Values

[iwfal]

It hasn't been proven to work. It has shown in small trials to provide a small survival advantage and fits statistical criteria that say the difference between it and placebo are below P=0.05.

Debating the definition of 'proven' doesn't seem worthwhile so I'll pass on this comment.

I did notice the CEO liked to use the term paradigm shift to explain away delays. That is completely irrelevant, but if it soothes you and satisfies you, that is fine with me.

Please don't impute to me a position I have never espoused. And note FWIW that I am on record that Gold irritates me for a whole variety of reasons.

If we have learned anything, it is not to generalize about different cancers. Why don't you provide me the details of the ipilimumab trial and the cancer it was being tested on so I can get a bit more up to speed?

1) If you are going to pick of the validity of generalization I'd suggest that generalizing from chemo efficacy (with its effect on progression) to an utterly different MOA of treatment seems pretty suspect

2) See below link #a for OS data - it isn't quite as dramatic a difference between PFS and OS as I remember but the data pretty clearly indicates a delayed effect on tumor progression.

http://meeting.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/28/18_suppl/4

I am interested in your background as it may explain why you seem to love the term "paradigm shift" so much.

Again imputing something to me that is highly suspect - that I love the term 'paradigm shift'. And then hinting that only physician's are entitled to medical opinions? Or some other form of stereotyping? Really? On a board where >50% of the interesting analysis posts are written by non medical/researcher "professionals" (well, ok, that's kinda cheating since Dew posts more than anyone else on the board by a large amount -g-)